On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 5:16 AM Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 01:22:24AM +0000, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> > Common hypercall firmware register handing is currently employed
> > by psci.c. Since the upcoming patches add more of these registers,
> > it's better to move the generic handling to hypercall.c for a
> > cleaner presentation.
> >
> > While we are at it, collect all the firmware registers under
> > fw_reg_ids[] to help implement kvm_arm_get_fw_num_regs() and
> > kvm_arm_copy_fw_reg_indices() in a generic way.
> >
> > No functional change intended.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c | 2 +-
> > arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c | 170 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > arch/arm64/kvm/psci.c | 166 ----------------------------------
> > include/kvm/arm_hypercalls.h | 7 ++
> > include/kvm/arm_psci.h | 7 --
> > 5 files changed, 178 insertions(+), 174 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c
> > index 5ce26bedf23c..625f97f7b304 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c
> > @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
> > #include <linux/string.h>
> > #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
> > #include <linux/fs.h>
> > -#include <kvm/arm_psci.h>
> > +#include <kvm/arm_hypercalls.h>
> > #include <asm/cputype.h>
> > #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> > #include <asm/fpsimd.h>
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
> > index 30da78f72b3b..9e136d91b470 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
> > @@ -146,3 +146,173 @@ int kvm_hvc_call_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > smccc_set_retval(vcpu, val[0], val[1], val[2], val[3]);
> > return 1;
> > }
> > +
> > +static const u64 fw_reg_ids[] = {
> > + KVM_REG_ARM_PSCI_VERSION,
> > + KVM_REG_ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1,
> > + KVM_REG_ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_2,
> > +};
> > +
> > +int kvm_arm_get_fw_num_regs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > +{
> > + return ARRAY_SIZE(fw_reg_ids);
> > +}
> > +
> > +int kvm_arm_copy_fw_reg_indices(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 __user *uindices)
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(fw_reg_ids); i++) {
> > + if (put_user(fw_reg_ids[i], uindices))
>
> This is missing the ++ on uindices, so it just writes the same offset
> three times.
>
Thanks for catching this! I believe I realized this later and
corrected it in patch-04/11 of the series and missed it here.
I'll fix it here as well.
> > + return -EFAULT;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> I assume the rest of the patch is just a cut+paste move of code.
>
That's right.
Regards,
Raghavendra
> Thanks,
> drew
>
